Men can negotiate harder. The same studies have shown that when women negotiate the way men normally do, they're written down as "bitchy" (whereas men get labeled as "assertive").
Who said anything about "same exact experiences"? Waterboarding as used in SERE training, or on volunteers who want to see what it's like, is nowhere near as harsh as the real thing.
And, of course, there is a big difference between doing something (no matter what it is) to a volunteer as part of their training, with numerous safeguards in place (including the provision to stop immediately), and doing something to an unwilling victim to force them to divulge information - or, as some presidential candidates have quipped recently, because "they deserved it".
The whole purpose of military personnel undergoing it is so that they are better mentally prepared to face and resist torture at the hands of the enemy.
And also, if you wanted to hide money from your government (which is the one that would otherwise tax it), why would you park it in a country that is pretty much owned by said government?
I disagree. Quite a few people have heard about Panama Papers. What they have heard, though, is that it exposed massive corruption in the Ukrainian government.
I can only assume you have no idea what "post-transition" means (much less seeing one in real life consciously), because it's certainly not "a dude wearing a dress and makeup".
No, his description is correct. None of what you have cited is an actual, you know, law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. It is a "legislative declaration", which is a way to say "we don't like when people are discriminated, but we're not going to do anything to penalize it". Since it's not a law, if you are discriminated against because you're gay, you cannot file a suit.
And yes, specific cities in NC did have actual laws that prohibited such discrimination, properly enacted through a democratic process. And the "small government" Republicans in the state legislature have said, "fuck you, you can't have those laws, it'll be what we write". Which - see above - offers no protection whatsoever.
Based on the reading of the law before and after the change, discrimination was never a cause of action in state courts. The old law basically said "discrimination is bad", but it was a "statement of intent", and didn't actually define any crimes and penalties in relation to that.
The real issue here is that they have pre-empted municipal laws on the subject. So previously NC didn't have any state-level employment/customer discrimination laws, but there was the federal law (which you had to argue in federal courts), and then there were laws of specific cities in the state - some of which barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (and which you could argue in state courts). Now the latter part is gone entirely.
They don't contradict federal law. They simply refuse to enforce it by state resources, which states have the right to do. But you can still be arrested by ICE in a "sanctuary city", and you can still be arrested by DEA in a state that has legal pot.
The definition of IoT only requires the devices to be addressable on the Internet (so that they can communicate with other arbitrary devices). It does not imply that control logic is in the cloud. Many existing solutions do that, but it can have its own logic, or be managed to a local server, and still be an IoT device.
The server's domain name was clintonemail.com. To remind, whois registries are public, and in this case you really only need the domain name to figure out it would make a good target.
And, according to the people who were running it, it wasn't even using SSL for the first few months. So you didn't even have to hack it, you could just do MITM on it.
Given all this, it would be truly amazing if it wasn't hacked.
I actually wonder why they need any randomization behavior here at all. Why not just switch between lanes in a round-robin fashion (i.e. for two lanes, 1-2-1-2-1-2-...)? Statistically speaking, this should produce the same distribution as a randomizer, so the effect on the queues would be the same, no?
Again, Russia is many things right now, but none of them are communist, neither in name nor in spirit.
It's an authoritarian country with a populist regime that uses symbolism and achievements from all periods - Soviet included - to prop its own legitimacy as a worthy successor. But it's most definitely a capitalist regime.
It can have significant effects in countries where the people listed have made a public stance against offshores and such.
For example, Putin has been complaining about how too many government officials have foreign bank accounts, villas etc, and how it's detrimental to state security because all of those can be used as blackmail. And, of course, his overall anti-Western stance, that includes financial corruption as one of the justifications. Now all that is demonstrated to be bullshit. And you might say that everybody knew that already - well, not in Russia...
The main evidence that Roldugin is, indeed, one of Putin's close friends is that he is the godfather of Putin's daughter.
And the fact was known long before, it just wasn't of particular importance. Roldugin himself said that he's been a very close friend since 70s when he was interviewed for one of Putin's biographies (sorry, it is in Russian, but you can find the reference after using Google Translate or similar by searching for Roldugin's name). That biography came out in 2000.
A gag order does not compel you to speak and lie that you don't have one.
So far, every case that I know of that went to courts where the law compelled private speech, was ultimately found unconstitutional per the First Amendment.
It doesn't look like it has its own FS, but rather just maps Unix root to an NTFS folder. This would imply no dedicated partitions (well, I guess you can always create an NTFS partition, and dedicate it entirely to Unix root - but I assume that's not what you meant by "a Unix filesystem partition").
I would assume that soft and hard links would just map to the same in NTFS, since it supports both.
Nothing has been said regarding permissions. It's an interesting question, because NTFS only has ACLs. It should be possible to map Unix permission bits to an ACL, but the reverse is not always true. Still, the older SFU/SUA did something there, so perhaps this does the same thing.
Hard to say about case sensitivity. NTFS itself is case-sensitive, actually, but the Win32 layer that normal Windows apps use to access it enforces case-insensitivity (but preserves case otherwise). If the implementation here is a proper NT subsystem, then it should be able to skip that Win32 translation, and use case-sensitive operations directly. But whether it actually does so or not is an interesting question, because if you were to use that approach to actually create files that only differ by case, accessing them from Win32 world will be problematic (but possible; Cygwin knows how to do that, for example), so it may be deliberately disabled. Hopefully, it is a configurable option.
Slashdot Mirror
What you describe are exactly the kind of gender stereotypes and expectations set by them that those evil "SJWs" are arguing against.
(And yes, they do raise the issue with male stereotypes, as well. If you haven't seen it, then you haven't been looking.)
Men can negotiate harder. The same studies have shown that when women negotiate the way men normally do, they're written down as "bitchy" (whereas men get labeled as "assertive").
Who said anything about "same exact experiences"? Waterboarding as used in SERE training, or on volunteers who want to see what it's like, is nowhere near as harsh as the real thing.
And, of course, there is a big difference between doing something (no matter what it is) to a volunteer as part of their training, with numerous safeguards in place (including the provision to stop immediately), and doing something to an unwilling victim to force them to divulge information - or, as some presidential candidates have quipped recently, because "they deserved it".
Yes, we do.
Ask the many journalists who deliberately had it done to them while writing (or broadcasting) about this very subject.
Sure, let's ask them! Guess what? They say that it is torture.
People who have, by your definition, been "actually tortured" - like McCain - say that waterboarding is torture.
In short, it is obviously torture.
And you're scum for repeatedly defending it here.
The whole purpose of military personnel undergoing it is so that they are better mentally prepared to face and resist torture at the hands of the enemy.
And also, if you wanted to hide money from your government (which is the one that would otherwise tax it), why would you park it in a country that is pretty much owned by said government?
I disagree. Quite a few people have heard about Panama Papers. What they have heard, though, is that it exposed massive corruption in the Ukrainian government.
I can only assume you have no idea what "post-transition" means (much less seeing one in real life consciously), because it's certainly not "a dude wearing a dress and makeup".
Mental gender = Men creeped out by bodybuilder trannies, women creeped out by shemale trannies
Why would they be? How would they even be able to tell, post-transition?
the women who don't want to share their restroom with a transgendered man
How many women were among the legislators who have passed this bill?
How many women have voted for them, and how many voted against them, during the last legislative election?
Male politicians love to speak for women, but they very rarely actually do so.
No, his description is correct. None of what you have cited is an actual, you know, law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual identity. It is a "legislative declaration", which is a way to say "we don't like when people are discriminated, but we're not going to do anything to penalize it". Since it's not a law, if you are discriminated against because you're gay, you cannot file a suit.
And yes, specific cities in NC did have actual laws that prohibited such discrimination, properly enacted through a democratic process. And the "small government" Republicans in the state legislature have said, "fuck you, you can't have those laws, it'll be what we write". Which - see above - offers no protection whatsoever.
Based on the reading of the law before and after the change, discrimination was never a cause of action in state courts. The old law basically said "discrimination is bad", but it was a "statement of intent", and didn't actually define any crimes and penalties in relation to that.
The real issue here is that they have pre-empted municipal laws on the subject. So previously NC didn't have any state-level employment/customer discrimination laws, but there was the federal law (which you had to argue in federal courts), and then there were laws of specific cities in the state - some of which barred discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (and which you could argue in state courts). Now the latter part is gone entirely.
They don't contradict federal law. They simply refuse to enforce it by state resources, which states have the right to do. But you can still be arrested by ICE in a "sanctuary city", and you can still be arrested by DEA in a state that has legal pot.
The definition of IoT only requires the devices to be addressable on the Internet (so that they can communicate with other arbitrary devices). It does not imply that control logic is in the cloud. Many existing solutions do that, but it can have its own logic, or be managed to a local server, and still be an IoT device.
The server's domain name was clintonemail.com. To remind, whois registries are public, and in this case you really only need the domain name to figure out it would make a good target.
And, according to the people who were running it, it wasn't even using SSL for the first few months. So you didn't even have to hack it, you could just do MITM on it.
Given all this, it would be truly amazing if it wasn't hacked.
Okay, that makes more sense now, thank you.
I actually wonder why they need any randomization behavior here at all. Why not just switch between lanes in a round-robin fashion (i.e. for two lanes, 1-2-1-2-1-2-...)? Statistically speaking, this should produce the same distribution as a randomizer, so the effect on the queues would be the same, no?
Again, Russia is many things right now, but none of them are communist, neither in name nor in spirit.
It's an authoritarian country with a populist regime that uses symbolism and achievements from all periods - Soviet included - to prop its own legitimacy as a worthy successor. But it's most definitely a capitalist regime.
Which communist leader?
If you're referring to Putin, then he's a lot of things, but none of them is communist.
It can have significant effects in countries where the people listed have made a public stance against offshores and such.
For example, Putin has been complaining about how too many government officials have foreign bank accounts, villas etc, and how it's detrimental to state security because all of those can be used as blackmail. And, of course, his overall anti-Western stance, that includes financial corruption as one of the justifications. Now all that is demonstrated to be bullshit. And you might say that everybody knew that already - well, not in Russia...
The main evidence that Roldugin is, indeed, one of Putin's close friends is that he is the godfather of Putin's daughter.
And the fact was known long before, it just wasn't of particular importance. Roldugin himself said that he's been a very close friend since 70s when he was interviewed for one of Putin's biographies (sorry, it is in Russian, but you can find the reference after using Google Translate or similar by searching for Roldugin's name). That biography came out in 2000.
A gag order does not compel you to speak and lie that you don't have one.
So far, every case that I know of that went to courts where the law compelled private speech, was ultimately found unconstitutional per the First Amendment.
It doesn't look like it has its own FS, but rather just maps Unix root to an NTFS folder. This would imply no dedicated partitions (well, I guess you can always create an NTFS partition, and dedicate it entirely to Unix root - but I assume that's not what you meant by "a Unix filesystem partition").
I would assume that soft and hard links would just map to the same in NTFS, since it supports both.
Nothing has been said regarding permissions. It's an interesting question, because NTFS only has ACLs. It should be possible to map Unix permission bits to an ACL, but the reverse is not always true. Still, the older SFU/SUA did something there, so perhaps this does the same thing.
Hard to say about case sensitivity. NTFS itself is case-sensitive, actually, but the Win32 layer that normal Windows apps use to access it enforces case-insensitivity (but preserves case otherwise). If the implementation here is a proper NT subsystem, then it should be able to skip that Win32 translation, and use case-sensitive operations directly. But whether it actually does so or not is an interesting question, because if you were to use that approach to actually create files that only differ by case, accessing them from Win32 world will be problematic (but possible; Cygwin knows how to do that, for example), so it may be deliberately disabled. Hopefully, it is a configurable option.
The whole point of UWP is that there's a single API (and hence a single set of docs) for all devices across the platform.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-...